Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we passed opinions a while ago. This is why our discussion is a bit of a problem. We are providing you facts which you are ignoring. You are discussing your "feelings" on the matter. The objections you have are subjective and these matters require objective factually based responses.
As I said, you are ignorant of the issues, so you continue to ignore the facts and revert to your personal feelings on the matter.
We have tried over and over again to be fair with you. I even took your own source material that you gave as evidence and showed you why it is invalid. I did through logical and quantifiable means. you failed to respond, my guess is because you didn't even read your own material you posted.
You have no backing. Your conclusions and position IS invalid. Not because I "believe" so. Not because I "feel" it is. It is invalid because myself and others here have proven it invalid. Meet us on the same level of discussion and we will be glad to continue the discussion. Right now though, you are operating from a much lower standard of discussion which is probably why you constantly "feel" like we are picking on you. Educate yourself or stop posting. You have a "choice", but keep in mind that we will not cater to your ill informed view of things.
I have both the law and medical science on my side. Their conclusions are not invalid no matter how badly you want them to be. No amount of posting your favorite pro-smoking "research" on this forum will change that.
Sorry, but you can continue to vent your anger at me all you want, and it won't change a thing.
Are you trying to convince me that you haven't been repeating the same thing over and over? I'm not going to play your silly game of "look at my research" because you can keep digging up all kinds of bogus studies funded by tobacco companies all day long. It's been common knowledge now for more than four decades that smoking is a major health concern. You can convince yourself of whatever you want. You and your brothers in arms have convinced yourselves that smoking isn't harmful. You claim that smokers have the "right" to light up whenever and wherever they please. You have convinced yourselves that business owners have the "right" to endanger the public's health. You have been shown repeatedly that the no smoking laws have been passed to protect the public from smokers who lack common courtesy.
Continue to whine about it, please. But do so with the understanding that you're on the losing end. You stand in opposition to medical science and the law. Antismoking measures will become more commonplace as time goes on. Smokers will still be able to smoke. They can continue to purchase copious quantities of tobacco products. But they're no longer welcome to blow their smoke in everyone else's face.
And that's a good thing.
A few things:
1. Nomander brought up what the EPA itself had said about the methods of secondhand smoke studies. Now unless Philip Morris hacked into the EPA database and put a rather embarrassing PDF file explaining the methods to that most studies on secondhand smoke us, well, it really doesn't look to good for your case.
2. Nobody here has said that smoking isn't harmful. I have stated that it is harmful several times throughout this thread. I'll also say it again, smokers are twice more likely to get heart disease than non-smokers and 8-24 times more likely to get lung cancer. They also suffer higher risks for a variety of medical conditions ranging from minor to fatal and acute to chronic.
3. The studies I mentioned were partially to entirely funded by governments and anti-smoking groups and conducted by universities, NGOs, and the Oakland National Laboratory. One did have some tobacco funding to complete the study, but only after anti-smoking groups pulled funding after a review of the data (wonder why). And considering that James Repace, Dr. Stanton Glantz, Dr. Kelly Brownell, Dr. Joseph DiFranza and many other who are responsible for much of anti-smoking movements science are as biased and have as a financial stake in the anti-smoking movement and if you look, they receive a lot of funding from pharmaceutical companies which just so happen to make millions of dollar from smoking cessation aids. However, I prefer to judge a study on its merits
I have both the law and medical science on my side. Their conclusions are not invalid no matter how badly you want them to be. No amount of posting your favorite pro-smoking "research" on this forum will change that.
Sorry, but you can continue to vent your anger at me all you want, and it won't change a thing.
You also seem to have some deviousness on your side as well, because you seem to ignore even your own sources being invalid. Look back through here, you know that one link I gave to the EPA, the one where I look at the sources. Thats your sources btw.
Man, ignorance must be bliss, because you seem to miss most points.
1. Nomander brought up what the EPA itself had said about the methods of secondhand smoke studies. Now unless Philip Morris hacked into the EPA database and put a rather embarrassing PDF file explaining the methods to that most studies on secondhand smoke us, well, it really doesn't look to good for your case.
2. Nobody here has said that smoking isn't harmful. I have stated that it is harmful several times throughout this thread. I'll also say it again, smokers are twice more likely to get heart disease than non-smokers and 8-24 times more likely to get lung cancer. They also suffer higher risks for a variety of medical conditions ranging from minor to fatal and acute to chronic.
3. The studies I mentioned were partially to entirely funded by governments and anti-smoking groups and conducted by universities, NGOs, and the Oakland National Laboratory. One did have some tobacco funding to complete the study, but only after anti-smoking groups pulled funding after a review of the data (wonder why). And considering that James Repace, Dr. Stanton Glantz, Dr. Kelly Brownell, Dr. Joseph DiFranza and many other who are responsible for much of anti-smoking movements science are as biased and have as a financial stake in the anti-smoking movement and if you look, they receive a lot of funding from pharmaceutical companies which just so happen to make millions of dollar from smoking cessation aids. However, I prefer to judge a study on its merits
And yet, despite all of those government funded studies, for some reason the government decided to go ahead and pass anit-smokig laws.
As I said earlier, you can convince yourself 'til the cows come home that you're right and that smokers are being unfairly persecuted and that business owners are suffering a terrible injustice. And you can dig up all kinds of studies and research to support your opinion.
Medical science and the law don't buy that argument. Neither do I.
You also seem to have some deviousness on your side as well, because you seem to ignore even your own sources being invalid. Look back through here, you know that one link I gave to the EPA, the one where I look at the sources. Thats your sources btw.
Man, ignorance must be bliss, because you seem to miss most points.
The point is this: secondhand smoke has been shown to be a health risk. Smokers refused to be responsible. They are now required by law to do what they should have had the courtesy and common sense to do on their own.
Look at it this way: you're having a wonderful time playing the victim.
And yet, despite all of those government funded studies, for some reason the government decided to go ahead and pass anit-smokig laws.
Makes you go hmmmmm...
As I said earlier, you can convince yourself 'til the cows come home that you're right and that smokers are being unfairly persecuted and that business owners are suffering a terrible injustice. And you can dig up all kinds of studies and research to support your opinion.
Medical science and the law don't buy that argument. Neither do I.
So your argument is that medical science is against me even when its particularly not very strong with a fair amount that goes against it assertion and that the law is against me when it can easily be changed back? Also, you are arguing that politics, conflicts of interest, bias, ignoring inconvenient facts and various philosophies on the role of government have never influenced policy?
So your argument is that medical science is against me even when its particularly not very strong with a fair amount that goes against it assertion and that the law is against me when it can easily be changed back? Also, you are arguing that politics, conflicts of interest, bias, ignoring inconvenient facts and various philosophies on the role of government have never influenced policy?
Are those seriously your arguments?
I'm not really arguing. I'm just supporting the smoking laws.
If, as you say, the law can easily be changed back, then put your energy into doing that. If, as you say, the medical evidence showing secondhand smoke as harmful is as weak as you claim it is, then use that to support your initiative to overturn these wicked, unjust laws that are in place to protect the public's health.
Until then, keep whining about what a terrible imposition it is on smokers for them to enjoy their habit outside, where they won't be blowing smoke in everyone else's face.
The point is this: secondhand smoke has been shown to be a health risk. Smokers refused to be responsible. They are now required by law to do what they should have had the courtesy and common sense to do on their own.
Look at it this way: you're having a wonderful time playing the victim.
It has not been shown, that was the entire point of looking at your sources. Those reports are inconclusive, the researchers themselves say they are inconclusive, yet your "political" groups like the EPA, ACI, etc... claim they are conclusive. That is a fact you so conveniently ignore. Look, you may be happy playing the sheep, I won't accept a group of people who are politically motivated and have been shown numerous times to be unethically biased in their positions word for it. Thats for the sheep, the ignorant, the easily impressed.
Here is one last lesson on rights, because you so desperately need to be taught.
You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to be heard. Welcome to ignore!
If someone wants to light up, they can go elsewhere. Smokers lacking the courtesy to go outside are now required by law to do so. But they're obviously having a good little whinefest as a result.
And what if I want to eat fried foods? Fried in TRANSFATS, as I had been accustomed to doing?
Can't anymore...the danged government is trying to LEGISLATE us into good health so as to make the whole health insurance issue moot. True freedom includes the RIGHT to make "bad" decisions.
Just added wade to my ignore list as well. He's not interested in debate and will just ignore anything said. There is no point in dealing with him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
